The Dissapointments of Oblivion

Is that title grammatically correct? I have no idea.

I am someone who likes my game-series to evolve over time, because, sure, I did enjoy Morrowind for what it was, but I don’t want it to be like so many other series in that it is just the same over and over. Call of Duty and Assassins Creed are modern examples of what I am thinking about.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I would say, does improve on most gameplay elements, giving the player more interaction as opposed to just having it happen automatically. I know not all think this is an improvement, but I think it does. I prefer my RPGs to let me decide what to do and the character I control to decide how effective that action is.

Something I need to make clear before I go on with this rant-ish thing is that I don’t consider Oblivion to be a bad game. I’ve had a lot of fun running around Standard Fantasy World #62983756. And I do think that people are ascribing undue originality to Morrowind. After all, “dark elves” worshiping gods everyone else thinks are evil, with a society that allows and emphasize backstabbing and infighting with a general insect-theme on their arms and armor does smell a little of the Drow Elves. And if we look around for a bit, I’m sure we’ll find a Drizzt Do’Urden in their ranks too. Possible candidates would be Symmachus, Sir Ralvas or one of the billion Dunmer NPCs we see in the Elder Scrolls Online.

But if I prefer Oblivion’s gameplay (and I do by a large margin) and think Morrowind is far less original than some would have it be, why do I still think of Oblivion as only the 3^rd best main series Elder Scrolls game?

The problem Oblivion has, in my eyes and it seems I am far from alone in this, is that it did not learn the lesson Morrowind should have taught it: A well-presented world that lets you learn a whole lot about it can make up for stale gameplay. Even elevate it above said gameplay to the point where people are still bitching about how the later titles are not as good 15 years later. And the reverse of this truth: A poorly presented world with few interesting things to lean can make a game a lot shittier than the sum of its parts.

Another thing I have to clarify before moving forward, because I am sure some apologist for Oblivion have spotted a common argument against it implied so far, is that I don’t mind if the lore is changed. Indeed, with time, I’ve become quite fond of the “controversial” additions to the lore, like the Ebonheart Pact, religion in Skyrim having changed or even that Cyrodiil was not what was expected (in principle anyway). An example that more clearly shows what I am thinking about would be Bane from The Dark Knight Rises; changed quite a lot from his original starting point, but still interesting and works very well in the story. Well, a story with loads of plotholes, but you know.

Would I have liked to see Cyrodiil as the Pocket Guide to the Empire 1^st Edition paints it? Yes, I would. Would I mind if they replaced things in order to create a better Cyrodiil? Not at all. The problem is that Oblivion removed most elements of Cyrodiilic culture (even erasing the difference between Colovian and Nibenese culture) without replacing it with anything. Which is the key part. They took something out, without filling something new in in its place.

What this led to, which is what disappoints me so much about Oblivion, is a very bland world. To make matters worse, there are few unique dungeons you can just explore. Not that there were that many unique dungeons in Morrowind, but most had something, some detail to make it stand out just a bit. Everything worth doing in Oblivion is tied directly into a quest you get somewhere else.

With poor presentation of the world and less reason to explore, Oblivion sadly does not do enough to surpass Morrowind as a game, IMO.